Bicyclist Fatalities in AZ 2009

On 12/1/2010 11:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 pm, wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:41 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°

I would expect that if everyone had proper lights, reflectors, brakes,
and rode in a vehicular cycling manner while sober, those 700-800 deaths
per year in the US would drop to less than 100.

No. They might drop by about half. Most of the adult victims are in
fact killed while riding lawfully.

So that would get annual bicycle deaths down to the level of annual
deaths from drowning in one's own bathtub. (332 that year, I
believe.)

Hmm. But I bet we'd still hear "Bicycling is dangerous!"

- Frank Krygowski

Do more people bathe or cycle?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 1, 9:23*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/1/2010 10:40 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Dec 1, 6:17 pm, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 12/1/2010 1:53 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

The premise of the question was that the plumbing was done, but the bill
was many times the estimate. *I would think your options would be to pay
the bill (and maybe learn plumbing for next time), negotiate, take the
plumber to court ...

If I did that at work, the clients would only pay up to the estimate,
and tell me to sod off if tried to collect the rest (and the courts
would agree with them if I sued in an attempt to collect of the excess
fees).

An estimate is an estimate and not a bid -- although some contractors
treat bids like estimates. *A bid is an offer to perform work for a
specific charge, and once accepted by the customer, it is binding. *An
estimate is just a projection of cost based on standard charges (like
hourly rates). *I got a bid from a geotech recently, and the final
bill was actually less than the estimate -- which made me pretty
happy. *I was also happy to find out that my house was not slipping
down the hill. -- Jay Beattie.

Are not some estimates binding by consumer protection laws?

By the way, I said I got a bid from a geotech when I meant to say that
I got an estimate. I'm glad it was not a bid, because then I would
have paid more than actual hourly rate.

Anyway, I don't know the answer to your question because it varies
from state to state. Around here, residential construction contracts
have to be in writing, but contractors can provide services on a time
and materials basis (with an estimate) or a bid basis. There may be
special state laws that apply to auto shops and other consumer service
providers, but I don't know of one in particular. Most written
estimates have long provisos stating that it is only an estimate and
that final charges may vary. That's why I always put in a "not to
exceed without approval" -- but even then, I can get reamed. Most
states prohibit consumer fraud of various kinds, so there may be some
law out there that broadly defines fraud as an estimate that is way
off base, but I'm just guessing on that . -- Jay Beattie.

On Dec 2, 4:48*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/1/2010 11:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 1, 11:29 pm, *wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:41 pm, T m Sherm n _

I would expect that if everyone had proper lights, reflectors, brakes,
and rode in a vehicular cycling manner while sober, those 700-800 deaths
per year in the US would drop to less than 100.

No. They might drop by about half. Most of the adult victims are in
fact killed while riding lawfully.

So that would get annual bicycle deaths down to the level of annual
deaths from drowning in one's own bathtub. *(332 that year, I
believe.)

Hmm. *But I bet we'd still hear "Bicycling is dangerous!"

- Frank Krygowski

Do more people bathe or cycle?

Do the same demographic bathe and cycle?

JS.

On 12/2/2010 12:52 AM, James Steward wrote:
On Dec 2, 4:48 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/1/2010 11:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Dec 1, 11:29 pm, wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:41 pm, T m Sherm n _

I would expect that if everyone had proper lights, reflectors, brakes,
and rode in a vehicular cycling manner while sober, those 700-800 deaths
per year in the US would drop to less than 100.

No. They might drop by about half. Most of the adult victims are in
fact killed while riding lawfully.

So that would get annual bicycle deaths down to the level of annual
deaths from drowning in one's own bathtub. (332 that year, I
believe.)

Hmm. But I bet we'd still hear "Bicycling is dangerous!"

- Frank Krygowski

Do more people bathe or cycle?

Do the same demographic bathe and cycle?


I have no statistics, but I expect that cyclists would tend more to
shower than bathe (bathe implying partial immersion in a recumbent
position, in a partially full bathtub, in this context).

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Dec 1, 10:20*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 12/1/2010 10:50 PM, DirtRoadie commented:

I assume your expertise comes from your having been sued a BUNCH or
from trying to collect on unjustified billings.


Yes, never lost /sarcasm


'Nuff said. It explains your bitterness.

On 12/1/2010 8:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:32 pm, Peter wrote:
On 12/1/2010 12:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

With paper, he tells an assistant to assemble the histories -
then he flips open each folder and spreads/eyeballs the paper in
a matter of seconds.

Yes, but now he doesn't need the assistant.

Right. The doctor does the work himself - instead of tending to
curing patients.

Part of "curing the patient" may come from "assembling the history". Or
maybe the history should be pre-assembled, or assembled in multiple ways
depending on what the doctor is trying to analyze.

Much of what application software does is codify process. Most often,
the process remains unchanged after the conversion. As a software
designer, I can attest to the gross inefficiencies that arise from
computerizing an existing process without taking advantage of computer
strengths and avoiding weaknesses, and leaving the process unchanged. As
an implementer/seller, I realize that many organizations have a
difficult time computerizing without the added challenge of process
redesign, and yet without doing that, a crappy outcome is pretty certain.

When I started at this university, purchasing equipment was quite
easy, most of the time. There was a good equipment replacement
budget, and there was also a good purchasing department. If I needed
something for the lab, I could describe it to the guy in Purchasing,
he'd dig and find me alternatives, I'd pick one, fill out a simple
form and equipment would soon arrive. (The vendor probably gave the
Purchasing guy a bottle of scotch and a box of chocolates at
Christmas, but that was OK with me.)

Then the university decided to computerize the operation, as they did
many other operations. So instead of six people in Purchasing being
the experts at buying things, every department secretary had to learn
to become expert at finding things, and at operating the arcane
software.

And of course, the secretaries (unlike the Purchasing guy) knew
nothing about dynamometers, or strain gages, or even thermometers, let
alone other lab apparatus. So the faculty members ended up doing most
of the work.

We see the same thing everywhere. Unless you're in Oregon or Jersey,
you get to pump your own gas. Increasingly, you get to check out your
own groceries. Even if you don't, you get to scan your own credit
card and figure out which buttons to hit to make the purchase go
through. ("Wait - not yet - OK, now try scanning that again...")
Don't train the cashiers and let them do it; instead, train the entire
population and make them figure out every different system at every
different gas station and retailer.

The work is being off-loaded to those who can't refuse it. And the
jobs are being taken away from the lower-skilled set.

- Frank Krygowski

Broadly speaking there are 2 approaches to raising productivity with
computer systems: 1) Enable skilled workers by giving them more
information faster (so called "decision support") and automating the
repetitive drudgery; and 2) "Dumbing down" the job to allow replacement
with cheaper, less skilled people.

The purchasing example you chose follows strategy #2. I have implemented
purchasing systems that went with #1. In one case (distributor), their
business went from $20-200M, while their purchasing head count stayed
the same. The purchasing agents were happier, backorders went down, and
warehousing costs went down. It turned out to be a good outcome for the
purchasing agents (fortunately the company was growing fast enough to
absorb the increased productivity), but they (PA's) still fought it
tooth and nail. Despite the savings, management wasn't entirely pleased
since they felt the system overly empowered the PA's.

In another application involving sales support, management expressly
dictated their goal of not making their sales people more productive,
but narrowing the gap between the average and the "stars", allowing them
to negotiate down commissions.

The choice of approach has little to do with technology and everything
to do with management policy. I declined to implement one call center
application where the primary purpose was to monitor agents. Not that I
was sure that management would use it abusively, it's just not the kind
of work that gives me much satisfaction.

The other examples you gave (checkout & pump gas) are common where
self-service replaces minimum wage workers. These don't require computer
systems, strictly speaking. In some cases, it's a better way to go for
the customer. I prefer to do most of my buying on-line, even groceries.

Of all the BS that came out of the "dot com" era, there was one concept
that proved durable -- "dis-intermediation". One of the reasons that so
many goods and services are expensive is that there are so many
middlemen in the chain. In some cases they add value, in many not, or at
least only subjective value. Retooling the process can generally lower
costs and improve quality, but there will (as with any substantive
change) be winners and losers. Even the eventual winners often feel
threatened enough to fight the changes, though.

On 12/1/2010 8:41 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/1/2010 6:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
If you want to reduce the 762 bike deaths, enforce headlights at
night. Enforce riding on the correct side of the road. Keep cyclists
out of door zones. Educate drivers about our right to ALL roads, and
punish drivers who screw up. Don't yell that biking is terribly
dangerous. That's counterproductive.

Indeed, there was a study (need to find the citation - anyone?) that
club recreational cyclists had a much lower serious accident and
fatality rate than people on bicycles as whole, and commuter cyclists
had even lower accident rates.

I would expect that if everyone had proper lights, reflectors, brakes,
and rode in a vehicular cycling manner while sober, those 700-800 deaths
per year in the US would drop to less than 100.


Frank has made similar claims, but the statistics just don't seem to
support them.

On 12/1/2010 10:53 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

I guess this means that Steve Jobs' job is safe,

Steve isn't selling EMRs. Maybe he should- the iDoc with integrated
wireless connectivity between servers, laptops and iPod Touches.

but I cannot imagine anything that could equal the ease and speed of
the physician's just spreading and eyeballing the paper - except for
having the aforementioned hourly employee print out the relevant
material and put it in a folder as before.

What happens at most of the places I consult is that someone prints out
the records for me, because all the computers are in use by their
employees and for me to access the computer means that someone else
can't get their job done for that time. I then type the relevant
information into my report on my laptop, use the back side of their
printouts for taking notes during my interviews and consultations, type
that information into the report, print it to give to them to be filed
and shred the stuff they gave me unless there is specific reason to keep
it.

EMRs are generally not designed to accommodate outside consultants,
unfortunately. And, even if they were, the law requires me to have a
copy in my files at my clinic as well as a copy in the chart at the
medical facility... so I'd still have to print.


You are just describing run of the mill systems integration problems. In
your case, the resident systems at the facilities you visit (with or
without actually visiting, ideally) should allow you access (limited,
secure, etc.) to the data you need without printout & rekeying. I've
implemented many applications that did nothing more than
exchange/merge/update information between various systems, it's a major
IT task.

On 12/1/2010 8:44 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:47 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 11/30/2010 11:57 PM, James wrote:
On Dec 1, 2:31 pm, Frank wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:02 pm, wrote:

On Dec 1, 1:21 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 11/30/2010 3:24 PM, James Steward wrote:
[...]

Anyone riding on the road with motor traffic is in constant mortal
danger.[...]

Anyone alive is in constant mortal danger.

I thought I mentioned that already.

Then James, try mentioning it more often regarding other activities,
would you?

Why? We're discussing cycling, aren't we?

I don't know if you can get Time magazine in Australia.

Yes it is here.

But the
December 4, 2006 American issue has, on page 68, an excellent graphic
and table discussing mortal dangers, i.e. causes of death in the US.
Maybe they did one for Australia, as well?

Maybe they did, though I couldn't care less. We're discussing
cycling.

US deaths for 2003 are shown as a great 3 dimensional pyramid, divided
into horizontal slices by causes of death. The largest volume slice,
at the pyramid bottom, is heart disease. 685,089 of those. The slice
for "other diseases" not otherwise mentioned has 681,150. For cancer,
556,902. For stroke, 157,689. Certain respiratory diseases,
126,382. Diabetes, 74,219.

Maybe you should make it your mission to improve peoples eating
habits. Jamie Oliver showed us what some schools in the US served the
children there.

_All_ accidents combined cause only 4% of US fatalities, or 109,277.

Oh well, if that's the case, why aren't you campaigning for no seat
belts and no air bags in vehicles too. Why not forget about vehicle
safety standards all together. After all, there are much more
important things.

Of those, the biggest sub-category by far is motor vehicle accidents,
_not_ including bike deaths, at 44,757.

Who would have thought it.

Apparently those that suggest that the best way to improve
cycling safety by riding in traffic. Not that I have a problem
with riding in traffic but suggesting that it's safer doesn't
make sense to me. Maybe I didn't get the force field attachment
on my bike.

butbutbut [1], most facilities *do not* separate cyclists from traffic
at intersections, but rather increase the danger to cyclists at
intersections. Therefore, it is no surprise that vehicular cycling would
be safer, since being run over from behind or sideswiped while cycling
is only a small fraction of the total number of accidents.

I'm not going to argue with you about what "most" facilities do.
I've ridden on many that are well designed.

I am also not convinced that rear ends and especially side swipes
are so rare but if they are couldn't it be partially due to the fact
that not many people ride in traffic? If driving in traffic is
apparently so dangerous for cars, and I totally agree that it is, then
why would it be less dangerous for cyclists who are less visiblee than
cars and aren't even protected by 2000 lbs of steel? This is the part
that I don't get.

On 12/1/2010 9:34 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 1, 6:49 pm, wrote:
On Dec 2, 11:50 am, Frank wrote:

"Although the risk of injury while bicycle commuting is real, it has
been difficult to accurately measure. Two large retrospecive studies
of North American bicycle commuters found the injury incidence to be
between 6.0 and 18.6 per 100,000 miles commuted. A 2-week pilot study
of commuters in Nottingham, England recorded no injuries."

google "A 2-week pilot study of commuters in Nottingham, England
recorded no injuries"

Hit this.http://hej.sagepub.com/content/60/4/293.abstract

"We calculated that commuters covered 5368 km, averaging 4.6 km per
journey (range 0.8 to 7.6 km), 57 per cent of it on roads. Twenty-
eight cyclists reported 53 incidents (10 per 1000 km: 95%CI 7 to 13).
Segregated cycle paths had the highest rates (43 per 1000 km: 95%CI 26
to 67). In 46 cases the incident involved taking action to avoid an
obstacle, a pedestrian, another cyclist or a motor vehicle. No
injuries were reported in these incidents and nobody involved in the
incidents attended the hospital A&E department. "

Not a particularly long study, if there were 20 injuries per 100000
miles, they may easily have missed seeing an injury over that 2 week
period, and of course if the injury rate is lower the likelihood of
any injury being recorded diminishes further.

Nottingham may be a relatively safe area to cycle. Where I cycled in
the UK, near Crawley and south to Brighton, I felt in less peril than
I do riding to Melbourne from home.

JS.

Nice find. But you left out the best quote:
"It is likely that the higher rate of injury on off-road cycle paths
reported in other countries would be confirmed."

Likely confirmation of a higher rate of injury kinda' leaves Frank
with just the pits from his carefully picked data cherries.

Off-road cycle path seems pretty open as well. Could be flat trail
through a park or a dirt bike trail down a mountain side.